Load SVG content into CAD drawings to convert vector graphics into editable geometry and layers. Provide a file path or raw content to add SVG shapes to technical drawings.
Import SVG content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| encoding | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Import SVG content' discloses nothing about whether the operation mutates the document, how path and content interact, whether one is required, how conflicts are handled, or what happens on failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter import tool with an enum field, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot infer required inputs, encoding behavior, or side effects from this definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters (path, content, encoding), and the description adds no meaning. It does not explain the mutual relationship between path and content or what the utf8/base64 enum implies for the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb and resource ('Import SVG content'), so an agent can tell it imports SVG data. However, it adds no scope, format, or behavioral detail beyond the tool name, and does not distinguish itself from sibling importers beyond the obvious file-type difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this importer versus alternatives like import_dxf, import_dwg, or batch_generate_svg. The usage is only implicitly inferable from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.